Trump to Keep Russia Sanctions ‘for Now’

Conditions 'One China' Policy on China's Currency

In a far-reaching foreign policy interview with the Wall Street Journal, President-elect Donald Trump is taking it more clear where he stands on policy with respect to both China and Russia. In particularly with respect to Russia, he appeared to be backing away from previous talks of quick normalization of ties.

In fact, Trump insisted that he is not going to remove Obama-imposed sanctions on Russia right away, something that was assumed by most reports given comments both from Russian officials and other figures on the Trump transition team. Instead, Trump says he will leave the Russia sanctions intact, pending Russia “really helping us.”

Trump did, however, say that he would remove the sanctions if Russia helps him reach his “goals,” insisting that there would obviously not be sanctions “if somebody’s doing some really great things.”

With respect to China, Trump remained more overtly hostile, insisting that everything with respect to China is up for negotiations, as he condemned China’s currency manipulation as unfair to US manufacturers, and insisted that the long-standing “One China” policy was conditional on China making serious reforms.

Trump had already raised questions about the “One China” policy by taking a phone call from the President of Taiwan, a country the US simultaneously heavily arms and does not recognize it’s existence. The call angered China, and Chinese officials have further criticized Trump’s incoming cabinet, with Secretary of State-nominee Rex Tillerson having called to deny China access to Chinese-made islands.

Last 5 posts by Jason Ditz

Author: Jason Ditz

Jason Ditz is news editor of Antiwar.com.

  • netiger

    Same old, same old…

  • jimrussell

    What could possibly go wrong, for Russia? Let’s see, Exxon has over 230,000 sq. miles of drilling rights in Russia they can’t access because of sanctions. But now it looks like the 2 Putin Pawn peas in a pod, Trump/Tillerson will find a reason to lift the embargo and walla billions of dollars of big oil windfall. Remind me is that in the U S interest or Putin/Trump/Tillerson’s interest?

  • Glenn Festog

    The embargo’s should have never occurred in the first place. That being said, Obozo is doing what he can to start WWIII with Russia before the 20th, so Trump’s “waffling” on the subject could be a bid to defuse the neocons before then….

    • Don

      I think there’s a pretty good possibility that Obama isn’t going to start WW3 in the next week. LOL

      Check out the stock market for indications though. Your forecast could make you rich!

      luv from Canada.

      • Motor

        Thank God we defeated Hillary.

        With Trump winning the election, Mr. Putin and others can simply wait for Trump to become President and ignore the attemps of Obama to try to start yet another war.

        But, if Hillary had won, this would be a very scary time with rising escalations leading possibly to a nuclear war.

        Every living being on the planet who doesn’t want to die in a nuclear fireball or in the nuclear winter that would follow should be down on their knees thanking whatever Gods they pray to that Hillary lost.

  • NobodysaysBOO

    Forget the old soviet crap and BUILD the WALL it is the one BIG DEAL!

    • Yes, because completely cratering the US economy should be the absolute first priority. Other stupid ideas can wait until that stupid idea has done as much damage as possible.

      • Don

        I think you are with me in saying, Trump better bloody well not keep the sanctions on Russia. Even just for now! Who is the traitor who is suggesting he would?

        luv from Don in Canada.

      • Macky

        Large infrastructure projects are usually good for the economy. Regardless of the end-usefullness of what’s being built. The southern state I grew up in used to build 4 lane highways to nowhere (well to a committee chair’s house actually), and those projects at least provided jobs and work for construction companies even if the road was only lightly used afterwards.

        Especailly true if Trump actually succeeds in getting Mexico to pay even part of the cost. Then it becomes money coming into the country and creating American construction jobs.

        • If we’re going to allow the state to exist (we shouldn’t), large infrastructure projects may be necessary to build the roads, etc. that the market would have built better and more cheaply absent the state.

          But no, using infrastructure projects to “create jobs” does nothing positive for the economy. The jobs it “creates” are just jobs doing things the state wants done instead of things there’s actual economic demand for.

          When you take a dollar from Bob to build an overpass to nowhere, that’s a dollar Bob can’t spend on something he wants instead; and the guy who would have had a job making the thing that Bob wants instead has a job wearing an orange vest and holding a sign telling drivers to go around the roadwork. If he has a job at all, that is.

          As economic stimulus, infrastructure is witch doctory.

          • Don

            The state doesn’t build roads Thomas, the paving companies do. Big ones even have the machinery to do the road prep work, and even erect the signs when it’s done. (if signs are needed) You didn’t go far enough to help us understand how your model would differ.

            Infrastructure projects to create jobs may be good choices made by government if the gov can prevent bad choices being made by the paving companies. It can certainly be fairly suggested that if the paving companies make the choices then they will choose the places to build roads where the work if fast and easy and very profitable. If the state isn’t corrupted, as yours is, then the state will make better choices. That’s the way it works in Canada. I think you are just making a wild judgement that big business isn’t as corrupt as your state. (country)

            Your overpass to nowhere is an indication of corruption but you don’t want to acknowledge that corruption with private business. So here’s a couple of examples:
            1. Healthcare in Canada is half the cost of your state’s and covers all the people with affordable healthcare of high quality. Maybe even better quality than yours. Ours is state run while yours is in the hands of private enterprise.
            2. The auto insurance I buy is better than yours on deductibles and on complete coverage and mine is state run. Yours is undoubtedly private enterprise.

            We could get into the political right’s plan on privatising medicare in your country, and a dozen other examples. I won’t but I would be interested in hearing how private enterprise can be shown to work better that state run for the essentials.

            Can the libertarian model be somehow adapted to allow good government to operate for the good of the people? I ask because right off the top, we would be eliminating the overhead that has to go into greedy private enterprise to get anything done?

            Let’s talk libertarian Thomas! I think you want to make your case but you sure can’t do it in those few words.

          • “you don’t want to acknowledge that corruption with private business”

            Wrong. Corruption is rampant in “private business” — mostly through the instrument of its interactions with the state.

            Yes, I want to make the libertarian case. In fact, I HAVE been making the libertarian case for a couple of decades now at a rate of somewhere in the neighborhood of 100k words per year. Comments at an antiwar site aren’t the place to make the general libertarian case.

      • Don

        You’re right on the money with that one Thomas, as it pertains to shutting out cheap labour.

      • NobodysaysBOO

        The true economic data will never be made public but if it where we would be in a great depression worse than 1928 for the last 15 years by every measure.
        even the hillary crew is back on food stamps!

  • Doggy

    Trump is a good negotiator. He’s not going to give anything away before negotiations begin. That said, I’d fully expec that reducing sanctions is something that Mr. Trump and Mr. Putin could discuss at a summitt meeting.

  • rick hawkins

    Maybe he just wants to live a little longer. Watch and wait. He knows he is going to have to be very sly if he wants to beat the deep state. I believe he has brought his enemies close with his picks for his staff, and they will be careful not to step out of line. There is a lot riding on this.

    • Don

      Yes, undoubtedly the deep state is going to kill Trump if he doesn’t follow through on his promises to bring about friendly relations with Russia.

      Better that, a bullet, instead of what the lowlife pigs are going to want to do with him when he renegs on every single promise he made to get their votes. Angry will not serve to describe that reaction which is coming soon!

      luv from Canada.